If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Question on rules

Hi,

I have experienced this recently during a game. I just want to know if this is a valid shot. The shuttle was hit at the rear side of the court. The shuttle flew by the side of the net (from my view is lower than the net), and landed inside the court (on the line).

In tennis and table tennis, such shot is valid, there is no need to clear the net during the flight of the ball to the other end. How about badminton?

If the net and posts are correctly arranged, then this can only happen when the previous stroke was travelling out at the side; so it's not much of an issue. The striker should have left the shuttle to go out.

Well, we have had this debate before. Under the laws of badminton that were valid before the IBF AGM this month the shot would have been good.

However, the new draft of the laws that I have seen would make it a fault because the relevant law (13.3.3) has been amended to say it is a fault if the shuttle "fails to pass over the net" instead of the previous wording "fails to pass the net".

There is another subtle but important change in this draft (to law 13.2.3) where it was a fault on service receiving if the shuttle "touches or is hit by the receiver's parner". The wording has been changed to say it is a fault if the shuttle "is hit by the receiver's parner.

A third change is that a pause in the service backswing is now illegal by virtue of the amended law 9.1.1 which now says:

"neither side shall cause undue delay to the delivery of the service once server and receiver areready for the service. On completion of the backward movement of server’s racket head, any delay for the start of the service (Law 9.2), shall be considered to be an undue delay".

The other important change affecting service in this draft is that the server's racquet handle need only point in a downwards direction when the shuttle is hit (law 9.1.6). This is a less stringent law than the old one which specified that the racquet head had to be discernibly below the server's hand at the moment of impact. I suspect we'll see more drive serves.

However, I'm not sure exactly which version of the laws has been passed as the IBF do not seem to have made the new laws available yet - unless anyone knows better.

Well, we have had this debate before. Under the laws of badminton that were valid before the IBF AGM this month the shot would have been good.

However, the new draft of the laws that I have seen would make it a fault because the relevant law (13.3.3) has been amended to say it is a fault if the shuttle "fails to pass over the net" instead of the previous wording "fails to pass the net".

I have experienced this recently during a game. I just want to know if this is a valid shot. The shuttle was hit at the rear side of the court. The shuttle flew by the side of the net (from my view is lower than the net), and landed inside the court (on the line).

In tennis and table tennis, such shot is valid, there is no need to clear the net during the flight of the ball to the other end. How about badminton?

In tennis, a wide ball does not have to cross over the net as you suggest. However, the ball is not supposed to go thru a gap between the net and the net post. In a properly constructed court, there really should be no gap between net & post to allow a ball thru. Not sure what the ruling would be with a net assembly that is not properly constructed.

not necessary so

When the shuttle was hit from the out of court position, it is possible to be below the net and yet land in the opponent's court. I guess that with the new ruling, it becomes more grey, as it is very hard to determine if the shuttle go over the net or not.

9.5 In doubles, during the delivery of service (Law 9.2, 9.3), the partners may take up any positions within their respective courts, which do not unsight the opposing server or receiver.

Their respective courts mean the right and left service courts or both the service courts?

Does this mean that the partners can even be standing on the server's/receiver's court?

Example:Server is serving from the right service court. Can the server's partner be completely on the right service court (both legs) without hindering the receiver's view?
Can the receiver' s partner be completely (both legs) be on the receiver's court without hindering the server's view?

9.5 In doubles, during the delivery of service (Law 9.2, 9.3), the partners may take up any positions within their respective courts, which do not unsight the opposing server or receiver.

Their respective courts mean the right and left service courts or both the service courts?

Does this mean that the partners can even be standing on the server's/receiver's court?

Example:Server is serving from the right service court. Can the server's partner be completely on the right service court (both legs) without hindering the receiver's view?Can the receiver' s partner be completely (both legs) be on the receiver's court without hindering the server's view?

I believe that term, respective courts, means that the partners of the server & the receiver can stand anywhere within the doulbes boundaries on their own side of the net as long as it does not unsight the opposing server or receiver.

Quite often, the server's partner will stand with one foot in each of their own serving areas. This is legal.

Thanks for the opinions. Just wanted to be sure about my interpretation (which was the same).

Here is a link which shows examples of the server's partner position (one leg on the server's service court, 7th second) and the receiver's partner position (one leg on the receiver's service court, 37th second)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFjfQfupVJk